Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
14 opinions for “CORONA v. 3M COMPANY”
TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co.public domain
OPINION HOCHBERG, District Judge: I. BACKGROUND Just breathing in a dirty or contaminated area can cause serious injury. Industrial respirators are designed to protect workers in these environments. This dispute revolves around the filtration membrane used in industrial respirators. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations govern the type and quality
OPINION AND ORDER KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge. On November 23, 2011, Plaintiff Big Vision Private Limited (“Big Vision” or “Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action against Defendant E.I. DuPont De Nem-ours & Co. (“DuPont” or “Defendant”), alleging breach of contract, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Broadly speaking, Big Vision claims that (i) DuPont mis
Centrifugal Acquisition Corp. v. Moonpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER RUDOLPH T. RANDA, District Judge. This diversity action arises from Centrifugal Acquisition Corporation, Inc.’s (“CAC”) purchase of Centrifugal Casting LLC from Adrian and Belinda Moon (the “ABC Defendants”). In its verified complaint, CAC generally alleges that after it purchased Centrifugal Casting, Adrian and Belinda Moon misappropriated trade secrets, breached their non-competition
Malletier v. Apex Creative International Corp.public domain
687 F.Supp.2d 347 (2010) Louis Vuitton MALLETIER, Plaintiff, v. APEX CREATIVE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. No. 04 Civ. 4200 (DAB). United States District Court, S.D. New York. January 5, 2010. *350 Theodore Conrad Max, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Rosen Entm't Sys., LP v. Icon Enters., Inc.public domain
359 F.Supp.2d 902 (2005) ROSEN ENTM'T SYS., LP v. ICON ENTERS., INC. No. EDCV04-1517RT(SGLX). United States District Court, C.D. California. February 28, 2005. *903 *904 Cara R. Burns, Robert H. Garretson, III, Hicks Mims and Kaplan, Los Angeles, CA, M. Lawrence Oliverio, Kudirka & Jobse,
N.A.R., S.P.A. v. United Statespublic domain
741 F.Supp. 936 (1990) N.A.R., S.p.A., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Court No. 88-06-00401. United States Court of International Trade. June 26, 1990. *937 Siegel, Mandell & Davidson, Brian S. Goldstein and Judith M. Barzilay; of counsel: David Newman, New York City, for plaintiff. Stuart M. Gerson, Asst. Att
373 F.Supp. 851 (1974) MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a corporation of Delaware, Plaintiff, v. BERWICK INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation of Pennsylvania, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 73-120. United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania. April 1, 1974. *852 *853 Hugh J. McMenamin, Warr
Booth, Marcus Dwightpublic domain
•>mpiMAl onf pii\l A I UKtbllNSnL Couer Shs&k. /Y59VY /Able /Icosfo^ Cieck Cou<4 Of Cnwioal Appeals £upr£(v\t Ccuri blelg PC &CX l220«-23og' FILED IN .RECEIVED IN MOTX 7*7//' COURTO^NALAPPEALS COURTOF«NALAPPEALS jAN 2 3 2015 JAN 20 2015 U£6r LlerK^ Abel Acosta, Clerk Abel Acosta, Clerk koel
393 F.Supp. 1230 (1975) MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Corporation of Delaware, Plaintiff, v. BERWICK INDUSTRIES, INC., a Corporation of Pennsylvania, Defendant. Civ. No. 73-120. United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania. March 18, 1975. *1231 Edward A. Haight, Britton A. Davis, Chicago, Ill., Edward T. Okub
Wentworth v. GULTON INDUSTRIES, INC.public domain
578 F.Supp. 508 (1982) Richard G. WENTWORTH, Vultron, Inc., and Transign, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. GULTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. CA-3-80-0785-G. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. August 24, 1982. *509 *510 Owen E. Perry, Ernie L. Brooks, Paul J. Ethington
ACCEPTED 15-24-00118-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
485 F.Supp. 1 (1978) FUND FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 76-1820. United States District Court, District of Columbia. Memorandum August 31, 1978. On Motion July 5, 1979. On Motion for Partial Reconsideration April 25, 1979. *2</
Atiles Moréu v. Comisión Industrialpublic domain
El Juez Asociado Señor Todd, Jr., emitió la opinión del tribunal. El Administrador del Fondo del Seguro del Estado so: licita la revisión de la resolución dictada por la Comisión Industrial en el caso del obrero Andrés Negrón Ramos. Las conclusiones de hecho a que llegó la. Comisión son las si-guientes : “Este obrero de 43 años de edad, trabajaba desde 1936, en la Cervecería Corona,
Roerich v. Commissionerpublic domain
NICHOLAS ROERICH, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.Roerich v. CommissionerDocket No. 83065.United States Board of Tax Appeals